757 = Heavy? / Wake
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 413
Likes: 14
From: House
757 = Heavy? / Wake (merged)
What is it about the 757's design that cause's it to have a particularly bad wake turbulance? So much so that normally heavy separation distance is applied to following A/C.
cheers.
cheers.
Last edited by Captain Stable; 1st October 2003 at 16:34.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL, USA
I don't have all the answers
But I can (hopefully) steer you in the right direction.
The 757 has a super-critical wing. It doesn't work very well at slow airspeeds, thus requires a greater AoA than similiar airplanes. Hence, really mean wake turbulence.
Try a search on super critical wings and I'm sure you'll have your answers and more!
Peace.
The 757 has a super-critical wing. It doesn't work very well at slow airspeeds, thus requires a greater AoA than similiar airplanes. Hence, really mean wake turbulence.
Try a search on super critical wings and I'm sure you'll have your answers and more!
Peace.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 865
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hmm, not sure I would say doesnt work well at low airspeeds.
I would say it works very well at low airspeeds, all in all is a fantastic wing, from a pilots point of view.
It is however poor from a point of view of the guys behind.
Perhaps someone with an excellent pof knowledge could explain.
As regards wakes, it really is a beast. To give you an example not so long ago we t/o 1 min behind a company 757 who was 5 tonnes lighter than us. Calm winds. At 1800ft we flew through their wake, and it was violent enough to disengage the autopilot.
If it did that to a 100 tonne aeroplane - what would it do to a light a/c ? I cringe when 737's or less say theyll accept a minute behind us !
I would say it works very well at low airspeeds, all in all is a fantastic wing, from a pilots point of view.
It is however poor from a point of view of the guys behind.
Perhaps someone with an excellent pof knowledge could explain.
As regards wakes, it really is a beast. To give you an example not so long ago we t/o 1 min behind a company 757 who was 5 tonnes lighter than us. Calm winds. At 1800ft we flew through their wake, and it was violent enough to disengage the autopilot.
If it did that to a 100 tonne aeroplane - what would it do to a light a/c ? I cringe when 737's or less say theyll accept a minute behind us !
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Amidst the dust and the flies, somewhere in Western Australia
Have unfortunately (for myself and pax) had the experience departing Manchester in a 748. Approx 2 - 3 mins behind the EGLL Shuttle, nearly threw us over. In all my years I have never previously, nor since (thankfully) encountered anything like it.
Very fortunate that all pax were still seated and strapped.
Very fortunate that all pax were still seated and strapped.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 413
Likes: 14
From: House
ZZ- cheers I shall do.
Our reduced strength Air Force (I am trying to be polite) has just aquired a couple 757's (in fact now the only military jets in NZ bar a couple of skyhawk and aermacchi demo models for interested parties to joy ride in) hence the interest.
Our reduced strength Air Force (I am trying to be polite) has just aquired a couple 757's (in fact now the only military jets in NZ bar a couple of skyhawk and aermacchi demo models for interested parties to joy ride in) hence the interest.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL, USA
A fair point from Expedite Climb
Ok, Expedite Climb, maybe I should've used words to the effect of: "isn't quite as efficient as slow airspeeds."
That might be a little more to the point, eh?
The 757 is notorious. Nike, if you're interested, there's a link below to an accident report involving a Westwind and 757 wake.
If I'm not mistaken this was the crash that really opened people's eyes to the special hazards of 757 wake (at least in America).
The sequence of events leading up to the wake turbulence encounter demonstrates the high performance decents the 757 is capable of.
Specifically, the 757 slows to less than 150kts on a 5.6 glidepath. Meanwhile the Westwind pilot continues just "one dot high" on the Glideslope.
In this case it just wasn't good enough.
Fly safe!
IAI Westwind vs. Boeing 757 wake
That might be a little more to the point, eh?
The 757 is notorious. Nike, if you're interested, there's a link below to an accident report involving a Westwind and 757 wake.
If I'm not mistaken this was the crash that really opened people's eyes to the special hazards of 757 wake (at least in America).
The sequence of events leading up to the wake turbulence encounter demonstrates the high performance decents the 757 is capable of.
Specifically, the 757 slows to less than 150kts on a 5.6 glidepath. Meanwhile the Westwind pilot continues just "one dot high" on the Glideslope.
In this case it just wasn't good enough.
Fly safe!
IAI Westwind vs. Boeing 757 wake
Title? What title?
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: In the dog house
Some years ago I checked into a hotel next to Orange County Airport. While I checked in, a 757 landed and on the parallel runway, a guy doing his PPL was trying to land and was flipped over; sadly he died. As I watched all the fire/ambulance vehicles swarming around, I was suddenly struck by just how real turbulence can be and it made me very very cautious which I am still to this day.
Last edited by phnuff; 14th September 2003 at 08:34.
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 73
Likes: 9
From: UK
B757 Wake
Another possible reason for the high levels of wake are to do with the fact that the B757 inboard and outboard flaps are vitually one complete surface with no inboard aileron.
This gives a flap surface all the way from the fuselage to the aileron. This a good distace for a vortex to be generated. On a say a B767 a fair amount of this votex spills out from the inboard flap where is abutts on to the inboard high speed aileron.
SAM 2M
This gives a flap surface all the way from the fuselage to the aileron. This a good distace for a vortex to be generated. On a say a B767 a fair amount of this votex spills out from the inboard flap where is abutts on to the inboard high speed aileron.
SAM 2M
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: the blue planet
My understanding is that the B757 wing is a very clean swept and 'fast' wing. That along with the long narrow body does not produce sufficient lift at low speeds, hence even greater need for 'high lift devices' than other jet transports, which also create higher induced drag and vortices, so much so that it is officially classified as 'heavy' in wake turbulance category.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: Kagerplassen
757 = Heavy?
The next question rose during a discussion between my captain and me during my last tour:
I seem to remember, just as many colleages of mine, that the B757, which due to it's weight is categorized as Medium, should be considered, by aircraft taking off behind him, as Heavy, due to it's vortices. Therefore, flying an A320, we should wait two minutes. In Heathrow we only got 1 minute and there we started to discuss the matter (offcourse, becouse we were not sure we took 2 mins). We both seemed to remember this 757-exception, but we couldn't find it anywhere. Not in the JAR, not in our company-regulations etc.
Does anyone know where this "rule" comes from and where it is written??
Thanks!
P77
I seem to remember, just as many colleages of mine, that the B757, which due to it's weight is categorized as Medium, should be considered, by aircraft taking off behind him, as Heavy, due to it's vortices. Therefore, flying an A320, we should wait two minutes. In Heathrow we only got 1 minute and there we started to discuss the matter (offcourse, becouse we were not sure we took 2 mins). We both seemed to remember this 757-exception, but we couldn't find it anywhere. Not in the JAR, not in our company-regulations etc.
Does anyone know where this "rule" comes from and where it is written??
Thanks!
P77
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: eu
Don't think it is a rule...
The 757 is not classified as a heavy with reference to wake turbulence on take off. You do, however, get a bit more spacing on the approach - 4 miles vs 2.5.
Anybody got any company restrictions on take off behind a 757?
The 757 is not classified as a heavy with reference to wake turbulence on take off. You do, however, get a bit more spacing on the approach - 4 miles vs 2.5.
Anybody got any company restrictions on take off behind a 757?
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: Planet Earth
My advice , wait the 2 minutes. Have you ever hit 757 wake ? Obviously not , otherwise we wouldn`t be having this discussion. The rules are there for a reason , not for academia , but for the real world.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 903
Likes: 5
From: Only upon request
I don't think ICAO standards talk about 757 exception, but these come from each country's CAAs.
UK CAA has different separation rules than FAA ones.
Most countries use ICAO standards, but I guess Italy and UK don't.
UK CAA has different separation rules than FAA ones.
Most countries use ICAO standards, but I guess Italy and UK don't.
Self Loathing Froggy
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 546
Likes: 2
From: elsewhere
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
From: UK
I always thought it was because of the peculiarities of approach flap generated wake in the 757 that means, according to the CAA, that it is treated as a heavy when following on approach, but not for departure.
Now what you do as a matter of airmanship is entirely up to you.
One point though, if you are about to follow a 757 onto the rwy and require 2 mins (for whatever reason).............. tell ATC nice and early.
Now what you do as a matter of airmanship is entirely up to you.
One point though, if you are about to follow a 757 onto the rwy and require 2 mins (for whatever reason).............. tell ATC nice and early.
